Morgan: 52-48 to Labor

Morgan becomes a third pollster to show Greens support at its highest for at least the current term, but otherwise shows little change on a fortnight ago.

Morgan has released its regular fortnightly face-to-face plus SMS poll covering 2955 respondents over the past two weekends. On the primary vote, Labor is down half a point to 34%, the Coalition steady on 38.5%, Palmer United steady on 5% and the Greens up a point to 13% – which, while well short of Nielsen, makes it a third pollster showing the Greens vote at its highest for at least this term, or in this case since July 2012. Labor leads 52-48 on both measures of two-party preferred, compared with 51.5-48.5 on respondent-allocated and 52-48 on previous-election preferences last time. Essential Research will be with us tomorrow.

UPDATE: Essential is with us sooner than I thought, the report having been published on their website. This shows the Coalition down a point to 41%, Labor steady on 37%, the Greens at their highest for the current term with a gain of one point to 11%, and Palmer United also up one to 5%. Labor has recovered the 51-49 lead on two-party preferred it had lost with last week’s shift to 50-50. Also featured are “most important election issues”, showing economic management and health policy have gained in salience since before the election while “political leadership” has declined; a finding that 61% oppose funding cuts to the ABC, with 21% supportive; 45% expecting the government’s motivation to reduce ABC funding would be overall spending reduction rather its dislike of ABC news coverage (45% to 28%); 71% disapproving of raising the pension age with 20% supportive; 58% favouring 65 as the pension age; 64% disapproving of including the value of the family home in asset testing for pension eligibility, with 26% supportive.

Briefly, I think we are in very close agreement on the complex nature of economies and the role of knowledge, as a transferable and ever-expanding form of capital, at the top of the hierarchy.

I was (clumsily) making the (ambiguous) point that investment in tangibles still plays a large part in most productive activities. In my head, I was implying that mis-allocation on the scale we seem to be seeing atm — e.g. extractive industries here, housing and steel production in China — is going to cause some real concerns in the near-ish future (but I’m not sure that anyone could have inferred that from what I had written!)

(From last thread) Microsoft wasn’t pinged for having a monopoly per se – it was pinged for using that monopoly to try and gain an unfair advantage in other markets.

In the widget example that you were discussing, it would be like the monopoly widget manufacturer saying “with every 3 widgets, you get a FREE gadget!”. Since the widget manufacturer is a monopolist, it can simply hide the cost of the “free” gadgets in the price charged for the widgets, and thereby drive all the existing gadget manufacturers out of business too.

I get a little annoyed (and a bit screechy) at the mistaken conflation of costs and prices, and the claim that they are equal, for any particular good. Education, as a specific example, is cheaper than ever to produce (care for a MOOC, anyone?). Yet the price of providing it in developed countries continues to rise. So what’s going on?

Now I should make a point about positional goods and rent-skimmers… but I’ve got to run. Have a lovely evening.

Aw Boerwar: Loved this, exactly what I was thinking, thank you thank you:

[I]Lordy.

Looks like Abbott will get the triple:
(1) He will be able to run on the carbon tax two elections in a row
(2) He will get to keep the direct action funds
(3) He will get to do what he really wants about climate change: nothing at all.

He certainly makes his own luck.[/I]

BW – Watching him this arvo I wondered what will profiteth Labor if the Big PUP climbs into its bed?

In a sense, Labor should represent those who it always has – workers. These days they are mainly white collar, many are University educated and most work outside of the traditional, highly unionised occupations. Some have retired, some are in education, some performing home duties or are carers. Some through misfortune or disability are unable to work even though they would like to.

But they believe in a fair day’s work in whatever they do for a fair days’ pay, a fair go for all in all areas of life, the best possible start for young Australians through excellence in education. And also a helping hand for those who fall behind – because of economic restructure, disability or health crisis.

They can’t pay lobbyists or advertising agencies to press their cause. They are not opposed to people getting wealthy through honest hard work, being smart or even being lucky. Good look to them they say. But these people don’t need subsidies, concessions or special privileges.

As for the broader country and the wider world, they want a stable economy, fair, sensible taxation, a sensible foreign policy, fair trade abroad and at home, credible national defence and a constructive role for their country on the world stage.

About this blog

William Bowe is a doctoral candidate with the University of Western Australia’s Discipline of Political Science and International Relations. He has been running the electoral studies blog The Poll Bludger since January 2004, independently until September 2008 and thereafter with Crikey.